Slashdot Mirror
Windows Genuine Advantage Makes Few Friends
With a reminder to "not get silly here," ocbwilg joins several others in casting doubt on the source of the rumor about a mass turn-off:
"A 'front-line tech-support drone' who gets paid $12 an hour to read the support script is somehow going to know what sort of top-secret plans Microsoft has for the next six months? I highly doubt it. It sounds more like the sort of thing that a help desk drone would say to try to persuade a clueless computer user to do things their way.Then, of course, there's the fact that if you install WGA today on a pirated copy of Windows, all you get is the notification message that pops up. You don't get shut down, and you don't even get cut off from Windows security updates (which are truly the only updates that matter, and even they aren't that good). I find it very difficult to believe that Microsoft is going to go from 'Hey, your copy of Windows doesn't look genuine, but you can still install our security updates' to 'I don't know if your system is pirated or not because you haven't installed WGA, but even if it is a legitimate copy I'm just going to shut you down simply because I have no way of verifying it.' Especially not in the span of 6 months."
Along the same lines, another reader asks "Why are we making all this fuss over what could just be a rumor unwittingly spread by a clueless help desk worker? Since when did help-desk techs become privy to future, unannounced plans for a company, let alone ones as sensitive as this one?"
Besides the dubious source, the sheer scale of such an action convinces reader Willith that it's not going to happen — he promises to eat his hat if it does:"The thing to look it is how this might affect legitimate corporate versions of XP — and by that, I mean VLK versions actually being used in an enterprise setting.The company for which I work has more than 100,000 copies of XP running in offices on six continents, participating in one of the largest Active Directory installations in the world. Every system's load is tightly controlled and managed, and I can tell you that there are no copies of WGA anywhere on any of those desktops (I've seen the SMS reports). Nor will there ever be.
People say to 'vote with your dollars,' but your dollars, and my dollars, don't matter. Large corporate dollars matter — like the kind of dollars that can outfit a company's world-wide IT needs. WGA has no place on a configuration-controlled and managed enterprise desktop, and MS would never risk upsetting their real customers — corporate Windows & Office sales — to emplace something like this."
Working machines matter to smaller users, too, though, and Kremit mentions reports spotted online of "Dell desktops, valid CDs, and other licensed systems having problems with WGA," writing "When these systems stop working, people are going to flip. To them, this will be akin to the computer crashing and taking their data along with it."
Other readers had some specific gripes about the way WGA currently misfires in their own experience; Jnaujok maintains that it hasn't worked well for him:
"What about my two perfectly legitimately licensed machines at home that fail the 'Windows Genuine Advantage' test every time they update WGA? Considering that one of them is my copy of Advanced Server 2003, I won't be exactly happy when it gets killed this fall. (Hey, I just use it for the mail server program because I can't stand sendmail.)And I'm just a little bitty guy with one server running. What happens when this hits some company's server farm and they all shut down? How much liability is Microsoft going to have when that happens?
And every time they 'fix' my copy after the new WGA comes out, I have to make manual registry changes. Can you imagine having to do that on a 500 machine server farm?"
Not everyone objects to the idea of harsher treatment for unlicensed copies of Windows; several readers welcomed the idea of more active license revocation by Microsoft as beneficial to the world of free software; WhiteWolf666 described a turn in that direction on Microsoft's part as a "solution to the Linux pricing problem," writing
"35 percent of PC software is pirated. I'm guessing that Windows XP is highly represented in that group (of pirated software; i.e. at least 30% of worldwide Windows installs are not legal). If even 10% of that user base decides to switch to Linux rather than pay the Windows tax, it'll be a substantial marketshare boost.Reader soren42 lays out what this might mean: "If you suddenly force all the non-legal users off your platform, you're forcing them to use something else. Which means, in turn, more demand for OpenOffice, games on Linux, GAIM, ad infinitum — until there is a more, better, complete Linux end-user software stack to seriously compete with Windows."And the remaining 90%? They might decide that the MSRP cost of Windows is too close to the MSRP of a brand-new dual-core Mac.
I'm thrilled. MS has ridden on piracy marketshare for far too long. I hope they do every thing they possibly can to stamp out software piracy, and I hope they succeed."
Other readers share that sentiment, with a twist: on the basis that remote turn-off really is in the near future of Windows, some, like reader ewhac, say they're through with Microsoft: "I just built a brand new machine, primarily for gaming. Oblivion has been fairly sweet. But it looks like I won't be playing those games anymore — not unless the entire game industry decides to support Linux. ... This is morally and ethically reprehensible, and Microsoft knows it, and apparently doesn't care. Well, I do care. I do not, and shall not, grant consent to Microsoft to remotely snoop on my machine, regardless of their ostensible reasons. If my copy of Windows stops functioning as a result, I will take that as a maliciously incorporated product defect, and respond accordingly."
Most people won't be doing the same, in the eyes of RightSaidFred99, who scoffs "Give me a break, people won't be moving to Linux. They'll find a hack for Windows, they'll buy Windows, or more than likely they'll just buy a new PC that comes with Windows legally bundled. Nobody is moving to Linux because the games aren't there, the thousands of cheesy little Windows applications people love aren't there, it's different (read: scary), and it's a pain in the ass for most joe schmoes to install."
Large corporations running Windows are in a more delicate position. Reader lynx_user_abroad doubts that many corporate users are likely to go seek out either free or illegal alternatives to updated Windows licenses. To the suggestion that many users would do just that, he writes"In a contest between you and them, I'd suspect Microsoft is in the better position to understand the nature of the addiction they have created. And I'd feel safe saying that even if you yourself had succeeded in completely breaking your addiction to Windows, which I suspect you haven't.Most people, most businesses are so hopelessly addicted to Windows that they literally can't even conceptualize their own survival without it. I'm always amused when I read the latest rant about a Windows vulnerability on an IE-only site, or read about some program manager publishing their 'Linux Strategy' document as a PowerPoint chart.
Think of all the hundreds of thousands of Microsoft Office documents the average business has, or the potential millions of dollars worth of intellectual property and business intelligence those documents represent. Now, even if they have the skill and determination to propose leaving Windows behind, think of the complexity of dealing with a customer base which might not be as skilled, or determined."
Several readers say WGA's phone-home capability doesn't affect the users who Microsoft would be expected to target, anyhow. GenericJoe says "Forget that," writing "I am a legitimate user of Windows. I know I am, because I bought a licensed copy from a reputable dealer. Thus, I figure, I don't need the WGA to tell me if I have a legitimate copy. I do have a legitimate copy. ...And Microsoft doesn't get to know anything else about anything I do, or affect me. The idea that I can be held hostage because I don't want to trust software from Microsoft. Well, that's kind of crazy."
Reader riptide_dot offers similar sentiments, asking "What if I did pay for [Windows] and I don't want the WGA software installed? I'm not allowed to use the software I paid for because I don't want to add on to it? That's like selling me a car and telling me that if I refuse to put a spoiler on the back that I won't be allowed to drive it."
As to actually unauthorized users, Akaihiryuu asserts that
Based on the common-sense arguments made above, unless Microsoft manages to not only flatten wrinkles in WGA as it currently operates, but also convince more users that check-ins with Redmond are close enough to their best interest to be worth accepting, mass turn-offs for Windows XP users seem unlikely. Thanks to the readers whose comments helped inform this discussion, especially those quoted above:"[P]eople who knowingly run illegal copies of Windows won't be affected by this in the slightest. These people have been cracking WGA since it came out, first with Javascript, then later with cracked DLLs. I'm sure there will be a crack for this within 24 hours of it being released (there always has been in the past), and these people will able to get it very easily. The only people that this will affect are
- People who think they have a legal copy of Windows but really don't because whoever they bought it from screwed them, and
- People with legal copies who either don't want to run WGA for some reason, or
- People with legal copies who run WGA and it mistakenly identifies their machine as 'not legit.'"
If I've purchased a legitimate copy, and I installed it with a license agreement prior to the release of WGA, by what legal authority can Microsoft disable my operating system?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Doesn't this just ring of the "...more you tighten your grip the more will slip through your fingers..." paraphrased quote. The more of a pain in the ass it is to register and keep track and pay and pay and pay will give more and more people the motivation to move to Linux or other free alternative.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Maybe if Windows Genuine Advantage would get off the phone and go outside once in a while, he would make some friends.
mass turn-offs for Windows XP users seem unlikely
Are you sure? My XP box likes to turn itself off at least once a week?
"Dear Slashdot readers, we made big bags of cash on all of the ad impressions generated from the 800 posts in the WGA article we ran yesterday. Today we're going to re-post some of those posts in the hope that it will work you all into a frenzy again so we can get another 800 posts worth of money out of you. Thank you for your support."
Legit question ... Just curious when and how did this backslash stuff begin? It appears it was timothy's creation?
s/([Pp])eople/$1people/g ?
uh...wtf man? I thought the first one was a typo, and then every single instance of the word in the rest of it was purposely misspelled. Smarten up.
The poster is stuttering.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Hey, Zeke... that horse we beat to death yesterday... I think it's still moving. I'll grab an axe, you grab a shovel.
Pee people? Pea people? WTF is with the same typo about 8 times? O_O
Isn't this what windows activation was supposed to be for??
Even assuming for a moment that Microsoft was able to identify with 100% accuracy any machine that was running an illegal copy of Windows, and with no false-positives, I still don't think that it would be in their best interst to shut down illegal copies of Windows.
Regardless of what your favorite Operating System is, there is no doubt that Windows largest competitive advantage at the moment is it's popularity. Whether or not you think Windows is better or equal to Linux or *BSD or any other OS in any technical way, the biggest reason that people run Windows is because everyone else runs Windows, and the programs they want to use are written for Windows.
They cant compete on price with free while charging for Windows, and they can't compete technologically right now with Linux because when it comes down to it: A: Linux and Windows have their own respective strenghts- but in the hands of a competent user/administrator, neither is vastly superior to the other, and B: Anyone who is computer literate enough to be pursuaded by technical arguments already knows this- or at least will recgonize marketing BS, and anyone who isn't will ignore it anyway because they don't understand it.
If they eliminate the possibility of using Windows for free, then they are going to start losing users to Linux, BSD or Mac. The more users they lose, the less advantage they have because "everyone uses it" which will drive more people into looking at alternatives.
Like many relatively expensive proprietary applications, the success of Windows is based largely on the fact that it can be pirated. Making it impossible or even reasonably difficult to do so will result in people looking at alternatives. For most people, software has no inherent value, so people make a decision based off what is cheapest and what everyone else uses.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Does the submitter have a special stutter that only activates itself when they try to type the word "people"?
Okay, on topic, and beyond what was already in the story text -- what mechanism do people propose Microsoft will use to "turn off" all of those Windows XP systems? Do people think they have some secret code they can send all over the world via multicast, that will tunnel through every firewall in the world to disable copies of Windows XP that they think might not be legit (or which don't have WGA installed)? Does XP "phone home" to see if it should be run every time it is booted up? What about XP machines that aren't even on a network? How will Microsoft disable XP on those systems?
Now I don't put it past Microsoft to want to do something like this, or their desire to force WGA on to every Windows user out there. However, I do question their ability to actually shut down Windows machines that aren't running WGA. I can see them denying them patches and updates. But actually shutting down XP machines? That would require either that:
And even in these two cases, either a simple firewall that blocks access the microsoft.com domains or simply not downloading the update in question would seem to solve the problem rather quickly.
Personally, I'm glad I run OS X and Linux machines and don't have to worry about such threats, but I really don't see how MS can effect such a threat. I am surprised that MS isn't trying to fight the bad press they're getting on this, however perhaps they think that the threat alone will be enough to get people who are using unlicensed copies of Windows to fork out the money for a properly registered copy, as I don't see any good technical way in which they can carry out this threat that even a semi-savvy user could easily work around (or avoid altogether).
Yaz.
Yeah, I can blame them for it. It's going to have 0 effect on the people they are supposedly trying to stop. Even if it does somehow hamper that "real pirates" for lack of a better way to say it, those people aren't going to go out and pay for windows, they're going to pirate something else or use something that is legally free. So it's most likely not going to harm the people they claim it's intended to and it's not going to get them paid for the majority of pirated copies of Windows. It will, and does, at least in a small way affect the privacy of legal windows users and if the WGA required deal turns out to be true, steps on privacy even moreso and potentially costs legal, valid, users extra money.
So, no benefit to MS, no benefit to valid users, no harm to pirates, potential harm to valid users. Yeah, I can blame them.
Now I am not a hardcore Linux fanboy. I run Windows XP and for the most part enjoy it. I also make my living writing software using MS products. However my home windows installation has decided to say I am not genuine anymore. I quickly figured out how to disable the WGA software/nagware but I am losing critical updates to my box because of WGA being disabled. I know enough leaving unpatched boxes of any OS on the internet is bad. And since I am hooked to a cable modem this concerns me. I've never really been pissed of at MS before. But this is enough for me to tell them to kiss my big hairy american ass. I am seriously considering moving to one of the more user friendly Linux distros like Mandrake or Fedora. My only concern is I will loose my games and .net development tools. I know there are alternatives but I don't know how to use them on Linux. I can't imagine I'm not the only user who feels this way.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
You think slashdot gets $$ per post? I imagine the number of readers is more important than posters, don't you? 800 posts is 800 extra impressions, which is a drop in the fricken' bucket compared to the number of visitors per day. Maybe the editors are actually trying to perform some kind of editorial service?
Pretty much anything the editors do here, some bozo is gonna complain.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Holy cow ... I've never seen the Grammar Nazi hit so hard ...
here, here, here, here, here, here,
While it can be debated whether such an action by Microsoft would spur the mass adoption of non-Windows operating systems, one thing is clear: the number of bots/potential bots will go down, possibly dramataically. I mean, how many computers out there are suspected of running illegitimate copies of Windows? I mean, the low end would say at least 10%, though a more reasonable picture would probably be much higher.
Considering that Windows (particularly XP, but any version, really) is so aggressively attacked by rootkits, trojan horses, and other kinds of malware that are used to create botnets, one could assume that by eliminating, say 35% of the Windows installed base, the number of bots would go down by about the same, provided that the people running pirated copies of Windows are representative of the entire set of Windows users.
This, of course, means that there will, for a time, be 35% less spam, spyware, and other shit being spewed over the Internet, again keeping with the same assumption. Of course, 35% is a number I just pulled out of my ass and could be substituted with any percentage. I honestly don't know about the number of pirated Windows copies that are in circulation. However, I know the number is significant, and the elimination of these computers from the Internet will probably be a good thing.
As for pirated copies of Windows that aren't connected to the Internet, well, they're not going to get shut down, but they're also nut pumping out any of the crap, either.
However, this option assumes that Microsoft is willing to go all nuclear on its user base, which I doubt. It certainly would not be good business sense to drive your current user base to use the competition, even if they're pirating your product. Furthermore, doing so is also bad corperate karma (yeah, companies have karma, too) and terrible PR. No ammount of money can rebuild a reputation for a company if its actions now mean that little Johnny can't do his homework because his computer got nuked by Microsoft's death ray.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Don't you mean the Pposter?
Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
I think they're referring to P-p-p-people, otherwise known as the users of the P-p-p-powerbook!
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Maybe when Microsoft says "required to participate" they mean something other than "install our spyware or get shut down", but I'm at a loss as to what.
And just because "self-help" (read: "We, owners of the license, have the right to 'help ourselves' enforce our license by remotely shutting down the software on your box") didn't fly under UCITA, doesn't mean it's not permitted as a "technological measure" in the context of DMCA.
What would be funny is if some hacker found a way to trigger WGA into thinking keys were bad and caused alot of valid computers to be disabled. Could you just imagine a worm that goes from PC to PC and triggers WGA into disabling compters. It could do some major damage. All they would have to do is make a worm/virus that changes computers keys to blacklisted/invalid keys and just sit back and watch the meltdown.
This is simply wild speculation based on unconfirmed and unreliable sources. Its absolute nonsense.
This is nothing more than a TROLL on a grand scale, and you are all guilty of feeding it.
Common sense would not allow any intelligent person to believe this even for a second.
I can tell you without a doubt that if Microsoft decided to shut down the software that I paid for and installed, there would be a large, lucrative class action lawsuit filed against them by individuals and many, many lawsuits filed by the corporations that would lose thousands upon thousands of dollars per day as a result of this. I just hope my firm could get a peice of that delicious and expensive pie.
Not only that, but in a market with emerging OS alternatives, why in the world would Microsoft risk a massive exodus from their software.
This is utter nonsense. Shame on you all.
-- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
Because the software isn't perfect. There's some fraction of legit users that it detects as being illegitimate. And the more they try to catch every last real pirate, the more innocent people get nailed.
Based on the history of WGA, the people who get falsely detected tend to be ones who change hardware - they replace a motherboard or a hard drive. Well, out of 300 million users, how many do that? Probably, several million. Not all of them get nailed.
But just imagine that 10,000 users get falsely nailed. Now is there harm? Yes, there is.
No wonder you're experiencing shut down problems! Never use the Shut Down... method. The best way to shut down a Windows PC is to be working on something important and not save. This almost guarantees a poweroff within 5 minutes, or at least a very bad crash. If you're lucky it may even tell you that your work is an illegal operation (regardless of its legality). I'm quite sure I won't be harmed by WGA if they decide to shut down all illegitimate copies of Windows, my Windows box already turns off and on more than my laptop with a low battery. In all seriousness, couldn't you just set up a firewall to drop the packet instructing Windows to shut down? Furthermore, reverse engineer and set up a dummy WGA? I've never reversed engineered software so I don't know how difficult it is, but I know there are some talented programmers out there.
Maybe because those geeks who may have had a motivation to check M$ were the ones who already moved to a superior plataform. And those who were using windows, were not motivated enough.
Title 17, United States Code, section 117 (and foreign counterparts). Look it up.
Seriously, how would it even be possible to 'turn off' every XP machine that isn't running WGA?
You would either need to have something on the machines that 'calls home' -- which would surely have been noticed by now -- or you would have to somehow connect to every machine.
What if you have an XP machine that has no internet connection and therefore no WGA? What happens to those?
The only way I can see this working is if there is already a 'death clock' ticking away in every XP machine, and if it doesn't receive the command to deactivate from WGA, it disables your OS. If this is the case, I'm sure there's a lot of legal issues that need to be adressed.
Machines without WGA won't be updated, or sill be updated manually by people who likely know a little more about what they are doing than the average John Q. User, so they can't effectively issue an update to add this kill switch functionality. It has to be there already if it exists at all.
=Smidge=
Isn't Vista going to be released early next year? If they shut off someone's copy of XP, and if it's important enough to them, they might go buy a legit copy of XP. If they have to shell out money for XP in September, how likely is it that they'll turn around and buy Vista come January. Seems they should have timed this to perfectly coincide with the Vista release for maximum profitability. If this story is true, then I see this strategy backfiring. Either in less (intially high priced) Vista sales (cause they just bought XP) or in people deciding to try out an alternative while waiting for Vista comes out.
So just because you 'believe' in 'copyright' you have the authority to break the law as well, and install spyware on someone's PC?
I am going to simplify what you are saying.
"I broke into your house and stole your guitar. So that gives you the right to break into my office, and burn it down." To my knowledge vigilante justice does not work too well in a court of law.
I don't know what delusional world you live in. What makes you think just because you own a copyright, and have a god complex that you have power over other people's property?
This is exactly why software patents should not exist. It makes people think they have some kind of power over others.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
There is a petition against WGA at http://www.petitiononline.com/nowga/petition.html Would be interesting to see how many signatories it gets
All it takes for M$ to have the PR-blunder of a lifetime is to have one single worm out there whose perpetrators figured out how to change the Windows XP serial number. Right now it would already be pretty annoying if such code were introduced into the fast-spreading worms (WGA notifications for everybody !), if they do it the day after WGA goes into kill-mode there'd be hell to pay.
(kill mode, incidentally, is the right word. Somebody somewhere is bound to have made a mistake on critical equipment; while far-fetched, just imagine some emergency service's system going down due to this during a catastropic event)
That is, of course, if this has not already happened.
They are actually morally right and you are wrong.
How is this so? I don't understand. Is it because they own some copyright? Does that make them right? Does being a copyright holder make you immune to spyware laws and litigation?
If you have 40K worth of windows software, you better make sure to buy that 100USD copy of MS Windows, my friend.
So because I have somthing on my machine, which is only a part of a working whole, that gives them the right to destroy what they want, even if it is NOT theirs? This is like saying the RIAA has the right to hack your machine because you have mp3s on your drive.
Just because a company is found guilty of anti-competitive practices, it does not give you a right to infringe on copyrights and violate licenses.
Research your history. Licenses don't matter. If you buy 200 copies. And put it on 200 machines. the License means nothing since you paid for it. There are no laws to protect the license philosophy since it is just a idea... Kind of like your facist liberal beliefs.
My bet is that MS is actually morally and legally right here.
Explain Please. If you pirate, then they are just as much as a vandal as you if they destroy your data. I believe its 50/50. Not 0/100. Either that, or your logic is distorted.
If I am not mistaken, Microsoft was the one who INVENTED the idea of copyrighting software, and selling it. Before Microsoft we just passed software around, and it wasn't illegal. You were probably born after that, and are too young to know about it. But that changed when Bill Gates got rich. So you are telling me that becuase Bill Gates started the idea of copyrights on software, changes how people obtain software, then lobbies to have the law changed in his favor, the pirates are the criminals? Why? Becuase Bill Gates says so? Because Bill Gates has this 'copyright', and it gives him unlimited power to get vigilante all over your box, reguardless if he is wrong?
Mod me down if you wish. Ill remember it as well when your time comes. The law is the law, no matter what I, or you believe. You say hes right, I say hes wrong. But because the law says I can't do this, or that, doesn't make it LEGAL for him to respond in an illegal manner.
Copyrights don't give you power to break the law. No matter what philosophy you believe.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
They largely don't exist any more because of the actions- their win is a pyhrric victory,
as was Digital Research's.
Unless you can afford the legal battle, you're almost always going to lose against someone
like Microsoft- they can abjectly outspend you in that arena without even hurting their
bottom line. Most people and organizations can't do that or even come a third of the
way there.
That's why I keep telling people that the "there's someone to sue" line is nothing but
folly- even in the case of proprietary software, there's nobody really to sue. So, if
this is the case, why are you spending all that money? A false sense of security?
Someone to blame instead of yourself when you screw things up?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
In my case, I use my home machine(licenced, legit XP SP2) to provide production support, from home, for my employer; in addition to genrally working from home.
/.-ers do the same thing.
This is a common arraingement, and I'm sure that many
I refuse to install WGA on my machine; for privacy reasons..I don't trust it. It's MY machine and legally I'm not required to install this.
Now, what would happen if MS decided to disable my machine 'over the wire', and I had a critical production support issue to deal with, while away from the office? The longer it takes me..or someone from my team to get on the problem, the greater the financial impact to my firm. I have to wonder if either MS or my employer is prepared for this scenario.
wbs
(my verifiction word is 'baldness'..funny. Some of these are better than Craigslist)
Huh?